Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roundabouts have become commonplace in numerous locations across the globe; however, they are relatively new in Alberta. Experience has shown marked improvements in safety and efficiency, and thus roundabouts have become an ideal option over signalized intersections or other intersection improvements. Additionally, their operation and maintenance costs are typically lower than for signalized intersections. However, in Alberta, there are concerns that current roundabout construction costs are high in comparison to alternate options. Numerous commercial loads, including oversize and overweight (OSOW) vehicles, use Alberta’s highway corridors on a daily basis. The department’s intent is to maintain a highway system that will have no blockages for high loads or oversized loads. Roundabouts may present a bottleneck if OSOW loads are not considered. This problem can be addressed by constructing wider approaches and/or using wide aprons; yet this comes at a cost for construction and may adversely affect operations by regular traffic due to higher speed entries. Another strategy is to make the centre island completely traversable with removable signs. However, situations such as these may present higher costs than anticipated. The department has identified potential high cost factors, including: traffic accommodation during construction, size of inner circle and overrun areas and the required amount of concrete, design life, etc. There is a general consensus that the cost will decrease once roundabouts become less unknown to contractors, as presently they are not accustomed to roundabout construction. The department aims to determine best design practices for roundabouts with the most cost-effective solution. For example, one good design practice is to build a roundabout that works for current volumes plus a reasonable time period (i.e. 10 years), and then be prepared to add additional lanes if required. Aside from saving cost, this practice is safer and allows drivers to adjust to a simpler roundabout. Cost-sharing formulas have also been proposed to finance the roundabout. For the purposes of this paper, a comparison of construction practice and resulting costs of existing roundabouts will be presented. Information on roundabout practices in other jurisdictions, with a focus on the accommodation of OSOW loads, will be obtained through comprehensive literature review and communication with professionals. The main intent of this paper is to identify potential improvements to current roundabout design and construction and to provide recommendations on the most efficient solution that maximizes safety while being fiscally acceptable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".